alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Nucotec, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for theperiod ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott W. Bodenweber, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Scott W.  Bodenweber                      |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Scott W.  Bodenweber, Chief Financial Officer |
| March 31,  2003                               |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 35 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 35

To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of 
                 the United States on January 21, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2012

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. Alexander) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of 
                 the United States on January 21, 2013.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the ``joint committee'') 
consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Members of the House of Representatives, 
to be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is 
authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of 
the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States on 
January 21, 2013.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

    The joint committee--
            (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the 
        services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies 
        of the Federal Government, under arrangements between the joint 
        committee and the heads of those departments and agencies, in 
        connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; and
            (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to 
        carry out its responsibilities.
                                 <all>
```
#### Hines *v.*Salter.

*Mandamus.*

(Decided Jan. 23, 1908.

45 South. 587.)

*Mandamus; Nature and Grounds; Other Remedies.*— The refusal of a county treasurer to pay a warrant properly drawn on the county treasury is a breach of his official bond, and suit will lie thereon against him and his sureties, and hence, mandamus will not lie to compel the payment of such a warrant by the treasurer, although the person holding it is entitled to compensation.

Appeal from Butler Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. C. Richardson.

Mandamus by James A. Hines to compel M. B. Salter, as county treasurer, to pay a county warrant. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Hamilton & Crumpton, for appellant.

Counsel insist that sections 4850 and 4851, Code 1896, entitled a juror who attends court ( although summoned specially in a capital case) to his mileage and per diem pay, although- the juror be not sworn as a juror.

No counsel marked for appellee.

SIMPSON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court denying an application by the appellant for a writ of mandamus to the county treasurer to compel him to pay the amount due the petitioner for mileage and attendance as a special juror. The treasurer was willing to pay the amount claimed for mileage, but refused to pay for the day’s attendance, on the ground that said petitioner was not sworn as a special juror.

According to sections 4580 and 4581, Cr. Code 1896, regular jurors are entitled, besides mileage, to $2 for *249each day’s service, and special jurors are entitled to the “same compensation for their attendance.” The clerk certified that the jnror had traveled so many miles, and “has attended as a special juror the present term of the court one day.” While it is true that the party is entitled to his per diem *(Chitty v. Tisdale, Infra,*45 South. 587), yet, as the failure of the treasurer to pay the warrant is a breach of his official bond, and there is an adequate remedy by suit against him and his sureties, the court below cannot be placed in error for refusing to grant the *mandamus.*— Arrington *v. Van Houton et al.,*44 Ala. 284; *Briggs v. Coleman,*51 Ala. 561; *Speed et al. v. Cocke, Adm'r,*57 Ala. 221.

The judgment of the court is affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and T-Iaralson and Denson, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Valley National Gases
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert D. Scherich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                        /s/ Robert D. Scherich
                                        -------------------------------
                                        Robert D. Scherich
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        May 24, 2004

                                     - 30 -
#### Laszlo Gelencser, Respondent, v Orange County Publications, Division of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for libel and slander, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rubenfeld, J.), dated December 20, 1984, as granted plaintiff leave to replead the first and fourth causes of action asserted in the complaint and denied, in part, that branch of appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

This action involves three newspaper articles written by defendant Levine, concerning a mother’s efforts to protect her three-year-old daughter from sexual abuse by her father. The first two articles used only a fictional name. However, the third article used the name of the child’s mother and described her preparation for and testimony at a New York State Senate-Assembly hearing on child abuse. The article also stated that after she "told her story in this column, the county’s Child Protective Services got into the act” and charged the father with first degree sexual abuse. The first and second articles, by themselves, contained nothing which would permit a finding that they were "of and concerning” plaintiff, a requirement for a cause of action sounding in libel *(see, Springer v Viking Press,*90 AD2d 315, *affd*60 NY2d 916). However, the subsequent publication by the same defendant established an identifying link through the third article, which used plaintiff’s former wife’s name and referred to and incorporated the earlier articles *(see, Van Ingen v Mail & Express Pub. Co.,*156 NY 376; *see also, Bruno v New York Daily News Co.,*89 AD2d 260). Moreover, that part of the third article which incorporated the two previous articles was not privileged, since that portion was not a report of a legislative or other official proceeding *(see, Holy Spirit Assn. v New York Times Co.,*49 NY2d 63). Therefore, plaintiff was correctly granted leave to replead the first and fourth causes of action so as to include the third article as part of those causes of action, and summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action in its entirety was properly denied. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6781

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELAN CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier Harris,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:94-cr-00094-JAG-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elan Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Elan Christopher Lewis appeals the district court’s 

orders denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lewis’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Lewis, No. 3:94-cr-00094-JAG-1 (E.D. 

Va. Apr. 10, 2012). We also affirm the denial of Lewis’s motion 

to reconsider, noting that the district court lacked authority 

to even consider the motion. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 

F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Eric M. McMILLIAN; Linda C. Liverman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF RALEIGH; Raleigh Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-1417.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

Eric M. McMillian, Linda C. Liverman, Appellants Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*155Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Eric M. McMillian and Linda C. Liverman appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellants’ briefs. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Appellants’ informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Appellants have forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc.
(the  "Registrant") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, Wenjun
Jiao, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of my knowledge:

         1.       The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the  Registrant as of and for the period covered
                  by the Report.

         Pursuant to the rules and  regulations  of the  Securities and Exchange
Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.

August 11, 2005                                           /s/ Wenjun Jiao
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Wenjun Jiao
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
|   | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Dated:  July 16, 2010 |   |   |   | By: |   | /s/ Eddie Vakser |
|                            |   |   |   |   |   | Eddie VakserChief Financial Officer |

----
# C_2019295EN.01007402.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/74

---

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Porrazzini v Parliament

(Case T-462/19)

(2019/C 295/98)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giacomo Porrazzini (Terni, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                    CERTIFICATION
                               PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                           OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Hua Meng, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of Dahua Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

       a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

       b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

       c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's Board
of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: December 20, 2006



/s/ Hua Meng
---------------------------------
Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019383EN.01003901.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2019 — PL v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-574/19)

(2019/C 383/46)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PL

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2019.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                 STATE OF
                                                                                PERCENTAGE      INCORPORATION
                                                                                    OF               OR
         PARENT                                 SUBSIDIARY                      OWNERSHIP       ORGANIZATION
--------------------------      -----------------------------------------       ---------       -------------
<S>                             <C>                                             <C>             <C>
ITLA Capital Corporation        Imperial Capital Bank                              100%          California

ITLA Capital Corporation        ITLA Funding Corporation                           100%           Delaware

ITLA Funding Corporation        ITLA Servicing Corporation                         100%           Delaware

ITLA Funding Corporation        ITLA Commercial Warehouse Corporation              100%           Delaware

ITLA Capital Corporation        ITLA Management Corporation                        100%           Delaware

ITLA Management Corporation     ITLA Commercial Investment Corporation             100%           Maryland

Imperial Capital Bank           ITLA Commercial Securitization Corporation         100%           Delaware
</TABLE>



                                       89
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7411

CHARLES MICHAEL STOKES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW MOORMAN, sued in his individual and official 

capacities,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (9:10-cv-01711-CMC)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Michael Stokes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles M. Stokes appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stokes 

v. Moorman, No. 9:10-cv-01711-CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2010). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 63 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 63

                 Correcting the enrollment of S. 2367.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 18 (legislative day, December 17), 2012

  Mr. Conrad submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
                 Correcting the enrollment of S. 2367.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Secretary of the Senate is requested to return to the House of 
Representatives the enrolled bill (S. 2367, an Act to strike the word 
``lunatic'' from Federal law, and for other purposes). Upon the return 
of such bill, the action of the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
in signing it shall be rescinded. The Secretary of the Senate shall 
reenroll the bill with the following correction: In section 2(b)(1)(B), 
strike ``in subsection (b)'' and insert ``in subsection (j)''.
                                 <all>
```